Re: [PATCH v8 7/8] platform/chrome: Introduce device tree hardware prober

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 12:56:20PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 11:32 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 06:29:44PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 03:34:26PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:

...

> > > > +   .cfg = &chromeos_i2c_probe_simple_trackpad_cfg,
> > >
> > >       .cfg = DEFINE_I2C_OF_PROBE_CFG(trackpad, i2c_of_probe_simple_ops),
> > >
> > > Or even
> > >
> > > #define DEFINE_I2C_OF_PROBE_CFG_SIMPLE(_type_)                        \
> > >       DEFINE_I2C_OF_PROBE_CFG(type, &i2c_of_probe_simple_ops)
> 
> I'm not inclined on using compound literals here. "simple X cfg" will
> likely get shared between multiple |chromeos_i2c_probe_data| entries,
> and AFAIK the toolchain can't merge them. So we would end up with one
> compound literal per entry, even if their contents are the same.

I'm not sure I follow, you are using compound literal _already_.
How does my proposal change that?

> > With that also looking at the above
> >
> > #define DEFINE_I2C_OF_PROBE_CFG_NONE(_type_)                            \
> >         DEFINE_I2C_OF_PROBE_CFG(type, NULL)
> 
> For the "dumb" case it makes sense though, since it would be one instance
> per type. But we could go further and just wrap the whole
> |chromeos_i2c_probe_data| declaration.

Maybe it's too far from now...

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko